Clarissa recommends a charity called INARA; they are primarily a children’s medical charity – they are small but that means that when you donate, you know that your money is going straight to care, not on publicity, overheads, fund-raising, leafleting… you know the sort of thing I mean.

Thank you for posting this. It looks like a great charity. I wanted to make a few comments, in my professional capacity as a fundraiser for a fairly big charity. First, we need big charities as well as small – for taking projects to scale and creating major change – they don’t have to be any less cost-effective or lean. Two, all charities whatever their size spend money on overheads – it’s the only way to have an impact and be well-run and effectively governed. Charities shouldn’t be afraid of this and donors shouldn’t automatically turn away from funding them. Have you seen the Dan Pallota Ted talk? – it’s an interesting watch on this topic. Finally, I’m a proud paid fundraiser for a charity – my return on investment is great; I generate about twenty times my salary each year. Why shouldn’t donors fund things like this when they make a charity sustainable and mean it’s able to achieve its goals. Charities and fundraising are getting a rough ride at the moment, maybe it’s time for us to rethink our assumptions? Thank you again for including a Christmas appeal on your blog. Have a lovely Christmas and maybe see you around NW5 over the festive period x

Yes Rachel! I also work for a large charity, and get so frustrated with the confusion around why we need to market ourselves, have a lot of staff (who allow the charity to function), and in our case run a (very profitable) chain of retail shops to fund our work. The charity I work for is a medical research charity which simply would not work without these things. Charity is very misunderstood sometimes, and unfortunately papers like the Daily Mail have done lasting damage in the public’s perception of them.